CNN: Do Hormones Drive Women's Votes? Me: I Can't Possibly Have Read That Correctly. I DID?!

I know the tagline for this blog is "Let's get real," so I'm about to get real with you. Really real. Isn't it the pits how our silly hormones are always getting in the way, clouding our judgment, winning out over reason regarding our decision making processes—especially when there's an election at stake? Ladies, I know you know what I'm talking about! I'm crossing my fingers that my ovulation cycle won't line up with Election Day this year, for fear I might do something irrational.

The sample group featured 502 women, all who had regular menstrual cycles and were not taking any hormonal contraceptives. Their research found that single women with high estrogen levels were more likely to favor Barack Obama, and women with high estrogen levels who were in committed relationships were more likely to favor Mitt Romney. According to Kristina Durante of UT San Antoino, single women feel "sexier" when estrogen is high and tend to have more liberal attitudes on things like abortion and marriage equality. Married women also have these similar, sexy-high levels of estrogen, but being in a committed relationship means that they may be "overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men. It's a way of convincing themselves that they're not the type to give in to such sexual urges," Durante says. As a result, she concludes they adopt a more conservative point of view to fight these sexy urges.

So, if women truly voted with their hormones, this race would be between Ben and Jerry, not Obama and Romney, right? Or would we all skip voting because, ugh!, we feel so bloated and it's kind of rainy outside so why don't we just stay in, order sushi, and watch the Real Housewives episodes sitting in our DVR? I kid, I kid. I think it's safe to say that we'd ALL vote and we'd ALL cast a ballot for the same write-in candidate: "Ryan Gosling in The Notebook".

Not surprisingly, the original CNN report on the study was taken down (you can still read snippets of it on the Washington Post and Jezebel). Aside from being questionably-scientific at best, this study perpetuates the stereotype of women as irrational creatures whose behavior is determined by where they are in their menstrual cycle. There are numerous factors that go into a woman's vote, and we're capable enough to choose the correct candidate to reflect our views in a way that's not contingent on our hormone levels.

It goes without saying that there's a lot more going into the decision behind my vote, but I'm going to let you ladies reinforce this. As we reported a few weeks ago, we recently polled 1,400 young women and found that the top three issues to Glamour readers are the economy, health care, and reproductive rights. Before the first debate, Meredith chatted with some girls here in New York (Glamour's HQ) about what they would ask the two candidates. Topics ranged from the economy and job market to financial aid for college students to racial profiling and law enforcement. And, if you take a gander at the comments on any given Conversation post, you'll see lively conversation (yes, I went there) about the election and where YOU stand on the issues, and even the two-party system itself:

In short, we're not going to be reduced to a pair of ovaries and a menstrual cycle—especially fewer than two weeks before we're about to cast our vote, especially when women's ballots are going to mean so much to this election. A woman's vote is NOT determined by her estrogen levels.

So, what are your thoughts about this study? I'm dying to know what you all think!

P.S. Be sure to check out Glamour's Election 2012 hub for up-to-the-minute info! We've got a lot to say, if you haven't noticed...

Photo: Thinkstock

ADVERTISEMENT

Maggie MallonWeb producer, writer, and girl. Never once have I forgotten about Dre.